Competition Act now contains two
important rebuttable presumptions in
this regard:
assumed that it caused damage (this
has been implemented by the new
amendments); and
prices applied by infringers by 10
percent.
one existed in the Competition Act even
before but still practically no claimants
tried to start legal proceedings against
cartelists.
provided for under civil law is applicable
in competition law infringement claims,
too. However, the commencement of
the limitation period is different for
competition law claims. It starts from
the date when the infringement ceases
and the aggrieved party learns, or should
have learned, of the infringement, the
harm and the party that caused it.
If a competition authority in the EU
starts to investigate the infringement, the
limitation period is suspended from the
beginning of the investigation until one
year after the authority's final resolution.
If the parties enter into alternative
dispute resolution, the limitation period
is suspended during that procedure.
provides that infringers may rely on the
passing-on defense. The burden of proof
defense. In the past this issue was not
clarified in Hungarian jurisprudence,
even though the Hungarian courts
seemed to accept the passing-on defense
applying that provision of the Civil Code
which set forth that plaintiffs are not
eligible to compensation for costs which
have been recovered from elsewhere.
detailed rules on discovery with regard
to how the courts may order participants
or other third parties, including
national competition authorities and
the European Commission, to disclose
evidence. Disclosure may be ordered
only at the request of a party and not
by a court ex officio. There are a couple
of requirements and limitations under
which the courts should order the
disclosure of evidence. The crucial ones
are the following:
the plaintiff, it can be ordered only
if it seems likely that the plaintiff's
claim is justified. Certain documents,
including leniency applications and
other confidential documents, are in
all cases exempt from disclosure.
capable of supporting the requesting
party's claim.
to evidence which is absolutely
necessary and in terms of various
factors, such as the costs and
workload, the disadvantages expected
from the disclosure cannot exceed the
related advantages. Failure to comply
with an order to disclose evidence
50,000,000 (approximately EUR
160,000). This fine can be imposed
repeatedly.
requests for disclosure are used as a tool
for fishing for information, the Hungarian
disclosure requirements might be
considered too stringent. It will be up to
the courts to so apply these rules so they
do not trigger unreasonable obligations
to the party asking for the disclosure. As
a matter of fact, the defending parties
will have lots of methods to argue against
disclosing evidence.
Competition Authority
decisions of the Hungarian Competition
Authority or the European Commission
if the latter ones have already rendered
such in the same case, concerning the
fact of the infringement. Decisions of
other EU member state competition
authorities are also accepted by the
Hungarian courts concerning the
fact of the infringement, but they can
be challenged. Other elements of
the decision, e.g., the effects of the
infringement, are not binding on the
courts.
The court may also request a non-
binding opinion on the case from the
Hungarian Competition Authority,
however, it is entitled to reject this
request.